Legal Question

A

aonavy

Well-known member
Just have a quick question.

I was showing a highlight video of a wedding I did to a friend and he asked me what if someone in the background didnt want to be filmed? I had the wedding highlight posted on my facebook page. I got consent from the bride and groom to do so. But what about the people in the background? How do you guys go about this issue?

In my contract i have that im able to do what i like with the video, but im only deal with the B&G.

thoughts?

thanks
 
I don't know about weddings, but in the past when shooting in a public place we have often posted signs saying that there will be filming, and by virtue of entering through the doors you agree that it is ok if you appear on camera in the background.
 
robmneilson said:
I don't know about weddings, but in the past when shooting in a public place we have often posted signs saying that there will be filming, and by virtue of entering through the doors you agree that it is ok if you appear on camera in the background.
Click to expand...

I read that somewhere. I'm not sure if that would look tacky or not. I might have to do that. I added this into my contract:

[FONT=&quot]The client is responsible to inform BrowniePics Production & Photography of anyone who objects to be filmed prior to the event. The client holds full responsibly of any legal matters that pertain to this issue.


[/FONT]
 
Off topic.....but just noticed your screen name. Were you an ordie?

On topic: Technically, for any filming, you need releases from anyone on screen, or a Notice of Filming needed to have been posted. Are you having issues with someone in the BG? You can blur them out so they are not recognized. But that will take a bit of work.

Most people understand that if they are going to a wedding, someone is going to be taping. And usually not an issue. But if strictly legally speaking.....yeah. Notices and/or releases should have been provided.
 
Last edited:
Talk to a lawyer! Spend the money to talk to someone about all of your concerns, and who can draft a contract for you to use that includes an indemnification clause. But it isn't just as simple as saying the client will indemnify you, since you're talking about using it in a way that doesn't benefit them, only yourself. (There are ways to partially deal with that, but that's what a lawyer is for.)

Honestly, if you make a living shooting weddings, $1,000 is nothing when amortized over hundreds of weddings, and it is just smart business.
 
Doc Bernard said:
Off topic.....but just noticed your screen name. Were you an ordie?

On topic: Technically, for any filming, you need releases from anyone on screen, or a Notice of Filming needed to have been posted. Are you having issues with someone in the BG? You can blur them out so they are not recognized. But that will take a bit of work.

Most people understand that if they are going to a wedding, someone is going to be taping. And usually not an issue. But if strictly legally speaking.....yeah. Notices and/or releases should have been provided.
Click to expand...

Ao2 (AW/SAR) Murray :)


some good points. no one has given me and issue but I just wanted to cover my ass for future.
 
robmneilson said:
I don't know about weddings, but in the past when shooting in a public place we have often posted signs saying that there will be filming, and by virtue of entering through the doors you agree that it is ok if you appear on camera in the background.
Click to expand...

If push comes to shove, that sign isn't going to protect you. What about blind people? People who can't read? People who don't read English? Or people who just plain don't see the signs because they're too busy texting at the time? What about minors? ALL of these people have rights. Nothing -- NOTHING -- is better than signed releases.

Best advice here -- consult a qualified attorney. Anything else is taking a risk.
 
aonavy said:
Just have a quick question.

I was showing a highlight video of a wedding I did to a friend and he asked me what if someone in the background didnt want to be filmed? I had the wedding highlight posted on my facebook page. I got consent from the bride and groom to do so. But what about the people in the background? How do you guys go about this issue?

In my contract i have that im able to do what i like with the video, but im only deal with the B&G.

thoughts?

thanks
Click to expand...

To Answer your friends question: They should not come to a Wedding in America and expect not to be filmed or photographed. Any reasonable person would know that one or both are going to occur. Your contract is with the B&G on their day, and essentially you are providing THEM a service, and not their guests. The guests have no reasonable expectation of privacy when mingling with the Wedding Party. So long as you do not try and take that footage and Sell a brand other than your own, you should have no issues. If you focus on one person who is not the B&G and then make him or her the star of your advertising campaign, then yes, you might want check yourself. If it were me and I was in that game. I'd just carry a model release for on the spot coverage for that very reason; spotting some chick I know that could help me sell product!

Cheers,
 
some good points all around!

Heres my contract i give to the B&G- if anyone is interested. Ive added a few things to make sure I cover my a$$ http://www.browniepics.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2013-CONTRACT-FOR-VIDEOGRAPHY-SERVICES.pdf

Hello Navy Guys!!! Wish I was still in. Cut some fingers off on a hanger door in Ridgecrest CA. Wanted to do SWCC since I had the weapons training being an AO and the swimming/physical part being a SAR swimmer. I would have been a "shoe in". frustrates me at times
 
Here in the UK, it's usually pointless to use get-out clauses, attempting to deflect blame by asserting it it the clients responsibility usually fails. However, again not knowing how it is in the US, but wedding guests are NOT members of the public, they've been invited, and keeping in mind that video and photography are common activities, the acceptance of the invitation implies they agree to being filmed. Members of the public would be different, but unless they are 'featured' - it's not really something you can control. Think about the people who went to the Royal wedding and stood for hours at the side of the road, and had their faces all over the newspapers and radio? No releases there, so I can't see a face at a wedding causing any grief.
 
paulears said:
Here in the UK, it's usually pointless to use get-out clauses, attempting to deflect blame by asserting it it the clients responsibility usually fails. However, again not knowing how it is in the US, but wedding guests are NOT members of the public, they've been invited, and keeping in mind that video and photography are common activities, the acceptance of the invitation implies they agree to being filmed. Members of the public would be different, but unless they are 'featured' - it's not really something you can control. Think about the people who went to the Royal wedding and stood for hours at the side of the road, and had their faces all over the newspapers and radio? No releases there, so I can't see a face at a wedding causing any grief.
Click to expand...

The Wife moved out of the wedding business before the wave of 'youtube' uploads of 'your wedding video'. However, we've kept up on some things, and I recall some brides putting a disclaimer in the invitation to the effect, 'this event will be photographed or videoed, and pictures may be posted on the internet'... similar to signage put up in public places when filming.

The legal actions that I'm aware of relative to use of wedding images, stem from 'commercial' use of photos which were not authorized by the wedding couple for their own images.

There's only one occasion were the couple specifically disallowed 'any' use of photos, even for the Wife's own promotional use (part of the contract wording...)... an actor... and not a 'name' actor... but that was only one occasion in about 20 years of work.

Of course... we didn't take pictures of the drunks sprawled out over the dance floor... and even if I had taken some fleeting "Wee Gee" type photos of such... the adult supervisor would have edited them out of the proof set anyway...
 
Well, AO2, we have more in common than you realize then..... I am missing my R index finger and part of my R thumb...... An unfortunate incident with explosives back in '94

When I was in, it was funny, I was always hit up by the SEAL detailer at the hospital (Chief Dunn) to go to BUD/S........of course then my nickname amongst the other "Docs" wasn't Doc. It was "Psycho".........cause there wasn't anything I wouldn't do for an adrenaline rush. Including smarting off to Chief Dunn, "Chief you know what a SEAL is? Future Shark sh**......" That always got him shaking his head laughing......"Serious, Psycho, you need to give it a try."

Kind of kicking myself now that I didn't at least give it a go.........
 
Last edited:
Doc Bernard said:
Well, AO2, we have more in common than you realize then..... I am missing my R index finger and part of my R thumb...... An unfortunate incident with explosives back in '94

When I was in, it was funny, I was always hit up by the SEAL detailer at the hospital (Chief Dunn) to go to BUD/S........of course then my nickname amongst the other "Docs" wasn't Doc. It was "Psycho".........cause there wasn't anything I wouldn't do for an adrenaline rush. Including smarting off to Chief Dunn, "Chief you know what a SEAL is? Future Shark sh**......" That always got him shaking his head laughing......"Serious, Psycho, you need to give it a try."

Kind of kicking myself now that I didn't at least give it a go.........
Click to expand...

hahaha now thats funny. I did go TAD over to little creek in VA to the teams. It was awesome.

Things happen for a reason though. Now im a computer geek/cinematographer :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top